Recent Posts

When MSNBC first docked Keith Olberman and then Joe Scarborough
for political donations, it was just another in a series of
bizarro split personality calls.

You see, MSNBC is a network that counts on opinionated and
outspoken program hosts like Olberman to generate controversy,
audience, and ratings. So when NBC tells Olberman to be partisan,
political, and biased, and then punishes him for not obeying NBC
News standards, it should be more than clear that NBC is talking
out of both sides of their mouth.

More broadly, however, the recent controversy illuminates the
hypocrisy of the media industry. The news business is struggling
with how to align its old rules with the new reality of fast
moving, hyper-linked social media.

Take, for example, The New York Times. The Times has done a
remarkable job of embracing the new realities of what Arianna
Huffington calls "the linked economy" — embracing a wide range of
sources and voices in its print pages and on the Web. The paper
has added hyper-local content from Fwix and Outside In, and even
shares some of its star columnists with other media outlets.
David Pogue, for example, can be found reporting for CBS Sunday
Morning, CNBC, or on The Discovery Channel.

So, it seems like the Times gets it right.

Well, not so fast.

It seems there's one thing that The New York Times writers are
forbidden to do. A thing that makes it impossible for writers to
do the one thing they do well, easily, and with pleasure. They're
not allowed to write.

Specifically — they're forbidden to blurb.

What exactly is a blurb? It's a "brief statement praising a
literary product" and it dates back to medieval literature from
the 14th century. Back then it was known as taqriz in medieval
Arabic literature.

In 1907, The New York Times was a mature 56 years old. It was
then that the dust jacket of American humorist Gelett Burgess' short book
Are you a bromide? was
described by the author's publisher as:

the picture of a damsel — languishing, heroic, or coquettish —
anyhow, a damsel on the jacket of every novel

The book cover was emblazoned with the phrase: "YES, this is a
'BLURB'!" and a picture the fictitious young woman "Miss Belinda
Blurb" shown calling out, described as "in the act of
blurbing."

Today, blurbing is a long-held and widely-accepted tradition
within literary circles. Authors will often ask other authors to
read pre-publication galleys of forthcoming work and supply a
brief endorsement of the work.

Not all writers blurb, and not all books are blurbable. But
there's no doubt that if you're standing in the aisle at Barnes
& Noble, a book jacket endorsement from a writer whose work
you've enjoyed in the past can help seal the deal.

But it appears that this long-held tradition isn't one that The
Times abides by.

In fact, a number of Times writers and contributors have told me
that they're not allowed to blurb.

I get it — blurbing is considered an endorsement — and the Times
doesn't want its writers engaging in biased behavior. But today,
in an increasingly saturated world of information, the ability of
a respected and well-known writer to recommend another piece of
work helps readers to filter through all the noise. And the Times
is pulling its writers out of this important curation
eco-system.

For a Times writer to blurb a book is valuable. And Times writers
should know that if allowed, they should use that endorsement
with discretion. But hey, it's time to let Times writers have a
blurb or two — don't you think?